linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22 (evm)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 1 Sep 2011 22:21:16 -0400
From:	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22 (evm)

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:32 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:39:02 -0400 Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 22:10 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> >>> > Hi,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net> wrote:
>> >>> > > I think that you are going to need to do something like Arnaud suggested
>> >>> > > and use "depends on TCG_TPM=y" instead of just "depends on TCG_TPM",
>> >>> > > unless you can convince someone that this is a kconfig bug.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > dammit... I guess there is...
>> >>> >
>> >>> > If you consider the following Kconfig:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > config MOD
>> >>> >         bool
>> >>> >         default y
>> >>> >         option modules
>> >>> >
>> >>> > config EXPERIMENTAL
>> >>> >         bool
>> >>> >         default y
>> >>> >
>> >>> > menuconfig A
>> >>> >         tristate "A"
>> >>> >         depends on EXPERIMENTAL
>> >>> >
>> >>> > config B
>> >>> >         bool "B"
>> >>> >
>> >>> > config B0
>> >>> >         bool
>> >>> >
>> >>> > config C
>> >>> >         tristate "C"
>> >>> >         depends on B
>> >>> >
>> >>> > config C0
>> >>> >         tristate
>> >>> >
>> >>> > config D
>> >>> >         boolean "D"
>> >>> >         depends on A && B
>> >>> >         select C
>> >>> >         select C0
>> >>> >
>> >>> > config E
>> >>> >         tristate "E"
>> >>> >
>> >>> > config F
>> >>> >         tristate "F"
>> >>> >         select E
>> >>> >
>> >>> > B (KEYS) allows to set C (TRUSTED_KEYS). Also, B (KEYS) and A
>> >>> > (TCG_TPM) allows to set D (EVM), which will select (C). Now,
>> >>> > menuconfig highlight the problem very well. Proceeding as following
>> >>> > A=m, B=y, C=m, E=y, F=y, we ends up having:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >  <M> A  --->
>> >>> >  [*] B
>> >>> >  {M} C
>> >>> >  [*] D
>> >>> >  -*- E
>> >>> >  <*> F
>> >>> >
>> >>> > which translate in the following config:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > CONFIG_MOD=y
>> >>> > CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y
>> >>> > CONFIG_A=m
>> >>> > CONFIG_B=y
>> >>> > CONFIG_C=m
>> >>> > CONFIG_C0=m
>> >>> > CONFIG_D=y
>> >>> > CONFIG_E=y
>> >>> > CONFIG_F=y
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I would have expected CONFIG_C and CONFIG_C0 to be 'y', just as 'E'.
>> >>> > If you remove D's dependency on 'A', everything works as expected. So
>> >>> > it would seem direct dependency state influence the state of reverse
>> >>> > dependencies...
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Will have a look...
>> >>> >
>> >>> >  - Arnaud
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for looking into this!  Instead of changing 'TCG_TPM' to
>> >>> 'TCG_TPM=y', the dependency should be on 'TRUSTED_KEYS=y'.  Then when
>> >>> I've refactored ENCRYPTED_KEYS, removing the ENCRYPTED_KEYS dependency
>> >>> on TRUSTED_KEYS, the EVM dependency would be '(TRUSTED_KEYS=y ||
>> >>> TRUSTED_KEYS=n)'.  Do you want a temporary fix for now?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, linux-next (randconfig) builds are still failing, so we need something
>> >> to prevent that.
>> >>
>> > you may want to try:
>> >
>> > git://github.com/lacombar/linux-2.6.git master/kconfig/expr-woes
>> >
>> ping ?
>>
>>  - Arnaud
>
> I assume you want me to test using expr-woes, but I'm not how.  Could
> you help me here a bit.
>
> (Over the weekend I removed encrypted keys dependency on TCG_TPM.)
>
Well, at this point, this is not really related to the particular
issue, but to kconfig more generally. I guess I'll just post the
patches on LKML and see if they triggers non-wanted regression.

Thanks,
 - Arnaud

> thanks,
>
> Mimi
>
>> > only the last commit is relevant to the problem, but depend on one
>> > another to get <assert.h>. The rest aims at tidying the expr stuff.
>> > I'm looking for regression it may have introduced.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >  - Arnaud
>> >
>> > ps: I'll most likely be AFK until sunday evening (to be conservative).
>> >
>> >> thanks,
>> >> ---
>> >> ~Randy
>> >> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/